自愿可持续性标准中利益相关者参与实践的比较

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Hamish van der Ven
{"title":"自愿可持续性标准中利益相关者参与实践的比较","authors":"Hamish van der Ven","doi":"10.1111/rego.12552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practices of stakeholder engagement vary widely across voluntary sustainability standard setters. This study examines how the sponsorship structure of standard setters affects the diversity of stakeholders included in consultations and the influence of stakeholder input on standards. I compare six sustainability standard setters through an original dataset of 7945 stakeholder comments submitted during public comment periods between 2012 and 2019 to answer two research questions. First, are some standard setters better at balancing stakeholder representation than others? And second, does stakeholder influence vary across standard setters? I find that industry-sponsored standards tend to attract more industry input than multistakeholder initiatives, but both tend to over-represent legacy stakeholders. I also find that sponsorship is a poor predictor of which comments will be influential. Comments that seek to weaken or clarify the rules in voluntary sustainability standards are more likely to exert influence irrespective of the sponsorship of the standard setter.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of stakeholder engagement practices in voluntary sustainability standards\",\"authors\":\"Hamish van der Ven\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rego.12552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Practices of stakeholder engagement vary widely across voluntary sustainability standard setters. This study examines how the sponsorship structure of standard setters affects the diversity of stakeholders included in consultations and the influence of stakeholder input on standards. I compare six sustainability standard setters through an original dataset of 7945 stakeholder comments submitted during public comment periods between 2012 and 2019 to answer two research questions. First, are some standard setters better at balancing stakeholder representation than others? And second, does stakeholder influence vary across standard setters? I find that industry-sponsored standards tend to attract more industry input than multistakeholder initiatives, but both tend to over-represent legacy stakeholders. I also find that sponsorship is a poor predictor of which comments will be influential. Comments that seek to weaken or clarify the rules in voluntary sustainability standards are more likely to exert influence irrespective of the sponsorship of the standard setter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12552\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12552","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

各自愿性可持续发展标准制定机构的利益相关者参与实践差异很大。本研究考察了标准制定者的赞助结构如何影响磋商中利益相关者的多样性,以及利益相关者对标准投入的影响。我通过在2012年至2019年的公众评论期间提交的7945份利益相关者意见的原始数据集,比较了六个可持续发展标准制定者,以回答两个研究问题。首先,一些标准制定者是否比其他标准制定者更善于平衡利益相关者的代表?第二,利益相关者的影响在标准制定者之间是否有所不同?我发现,行业赞助的标准往往比多涉众计划吸引更多的行业投入,但两者都倾向于过度代表遗留涉众。我还发现,赞助并不能很好地预测哪些评论将具有影响力。试图削弱或澄清自愿可持续性标准中的规则的评论更有可能产生影响,而不管标准制定者是否支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of stakeholder engagement practices in voluntary sustainability standards
Practices of stakeholder engagement vary widely across voluntary sustainability standard setters. This study examines how the sponsorship structure of standard setters affects the diversity of stakeholders included in consultations and the influence of stakeholder input on standards. I compare six sustainability standard setters through an original dataset of 7945 stakeholder comments submitted during public comment periods between 2012 and 2019 to answer two research questions. First, are some standard setters better at balancing stakeholder representation than others? And second, does stakeholder influence vary across standard setters? I find that industry-sponsored standards tend to attract more industry input than multistakeholder initiatives, but both tend to over-represent legacy stakeholders. I also find that sponsorship is a poor predictor of which comments will be influential. Comments that seek to weaken or clarify the rules in voluntary sustainability standards are more likely to exert influence irrespective of the sponsorship of the standard setter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信